Not sure how many BC Liberals there are in this forum but I am a little worried about one of the people running for the nomination. Mark Ziebarth. His track record of using "tea party tactics" to try and get his way is very alarming. Just ask our neighbour's in Summerland.

Now he's running to win the chance at Bill Barisoff's seat. What's ironic is his political views don't line up with the Liberal party. For example, he is strongly pro-life. BC Liberals are for a women's right to choose. It just doesn't add up.....

I think having lot’s of candidates is a good thing. I don’t know Mr. Ziebarth but he impressed me when he took on the anti-everything crowd in Summerland and stood up to them. I wish more politicians had that kind of courage.

As for potentially being “pro-life” this sounds to me more like a red-herring used to try and discredit Ziebarth probably because you are supporting another candidate. I would bet my bottom dollar that some of our current MLA’s are also likely “pro-life” but that does not mean personal views get in the way of doing the job of MLA.

Have you discussed your concerns with Ziebarth ? From listening to him on CBC radio he sounds like someone who does not duck questions.

This brings up a point that has stuck in my craw for years in that once elected, MLAs and MPs are largely expected to put their own views (and those of their constituents) on the back burner in favour of party policy. What a candidate says at election time often bears little resemblance to what he can do once in office. Those who put the views of the electorate above party policy are more often than not branded as renegade and rendered toothless if not ostracized altogether.

-fluffy- wrote:This brings up a point that has stuck in my craw for years in that once elected, MLAs and MPs are largely expected to put their own views (and those of their constituents) on the back burner in favour of party policy. What a candidate says at election time often bears little resemblance to what he can do once in office. Those who put the views of the electorate above party policy are more often than not branded as renegade and rendered toothless if not ostracized altogether.

:rate10:

Sticks in my craw, too, Fluffy. They say what the people want to hear before the election, get elected, and then turn on us.

Unfortunately, in all my long years of politics watching in BC, I can only think of three politicians who stayed true to themselves and to their electorate. And, also unfortunately, they were all NDP.

__________________________________________________________________________________________We are a generation of idiots - smart phones and dumb people.

I hear you Fluffy, but whether we accept it or not our political system functions on a team level. You have a leader who is not unlike a coach and individual MLA’s get elected onto the team.

In sports we recognize that well coached teams with players who work well together will get more done then a group of individuals who put their own interests ahead of the teams interest. Somehow when it comes to politics we seem to think if everyone bickered solely for their own interests, or in this case the specific interests of where they come from, that we would end up being further ahead.

Our system is not perfect but I cannot think of any place in the world where I would rather live and part of the reason is because our government system works better then most.

CTF wrote:Our system is not perfect but I cannot think of any place in the world where I would rather live and part of the reason is because our government system works better then most.

Agreed. Still, it's not like we've never seen things go sour and central election platform planks cast aside once the count was done. HST in Victoria, environmental concerns in Ottawa. With what has gone on in the international scene over the last few years (read: Kyoto Accord) has me questioning my pride as a Canadian for the first time in my life.

You are right Fluffy, things do go sour and that seems to be part of democracy and government. As an example, to me it made no sense to sign on to the Kyoto agreement and then sit back and do nothing while emission levels continued to rise. I would much prefer to be honest and not be part of the agreement if we were never going to honour our part of the agreement in the first place. I think every country has unhappiness right now and I am proud to be a Canadian because I see that our country is prepared to make changes where as other countries are not and as a result they are running out of money.

The comments regarding what a politician says during an election and what he/she actually does are very true.

I think that's one of the reasons I can't understand why Mark Z would run under the BC Liberal mantle. I mean Mark is an American, who when he lived there, was a card carrying member of the Republican party. Now the Republican platform does not really line up with the BC Liberals. Different sides of the aisle. So I'm confused.

What if he wins the nomination? Does that mean he puts all of his personal opinions in a drawer until after the election, when he can operate with impunity? Can we really trust a candidate like that?

The other 3 candidates don't have this issue -- they all have track records that align with their party affiliation...

DblDwn11 wrote:The comments regarding what a politician says during an election and what he/she actually does are very true.

I think that's one of the reasons I can't understand why Mark Z would run under the BC Liberal mantle. I mean Mark is an American, who when he lived there, was a card carrying member of the Republican party. Now the Republican platform does not really line up with the BC Liberals. Different sides of the aisle. So I'm confused.

What if he wins the nomination? Does that mean he puts all of his personal opinions in a drawer until after the election, when he can operate with impunity? Can we really trust a candidate like that?

The other 3 candidates don't have this issue -- they all have track records that align with their party affiliation...

For me, I'm going with the theory: "Better the devil you know"

Our bc libs are a coalition of the right. With the apparent implosion of the cons, I can see why he threw his hat in the liberal ring.

Do not argue with an idiot. He will drag you down to his level and beat you with experience.

Captain77 wrote: What do you call "no comment"? That was his answer to one and only difficult question during the CBC interview.

I have to respectfully disagree with you.

The question that Ziebarth at first said “no comment” on but later in the interview actually answered was a question solely about moving the fixed election date up to have the election occur sooner. In the context of the interview it was hardly a difficult question at all. But don’t take my word for it, here is a link to the interview so you can listen and judge for yourself….

Just to refresh memories here, during the Summerland municipal election, Mark Ziebarth did not "stand up" for certain ideals. He hid behind the guise of an imaginary association. He never put his name to anything until the elected Mayor and Councillors were accused of election fraud for accepting anonymous campaign donations. At that point, Mark Ziebarth "boldly" (if you could call it that) piped up that all of the electioneering on behalf of the imaginary Citizens for Smart Governance was just him. Most reasonable people watching the showdown between the council and the Penticton Herald editor would surmise that the elected officials knew at least something of the ad campaign and in all likelyhood, Ziebarth didn't act completely alone. I think he just took the rap because an elected official could be ousted as punishment if their involvement were ever proven. Either way you slice it, his involvement could be characterized as deceitful (he wasn't alone in the Smart Governance campaigning) and cowardly (he purposefully hid is own identity therefore, not courageous or brave or principled ). To top it all off though, when finally questioned about this whole shenanigan on CBC radio, regardless of the spirit of the law of the Municipal Election Act, Zeibarth boasted that next election, he would "double down" his efforts, spend twice as much and be twice as brazen. WTF? This guy practices a very different type of electioneering. I would call this shady mudslinging.

".. the citizens also asked RCMP to investigate who was behind newspaper ads that -- among other things --accused slow-growth advocates of being anti-family."

(....that's right, anti-family)

"Under the act, it is illegal to both give and receive anonymous contributions valued at more than $50.The penalty for candidates is disqualification from holding office and from running again until after the next general election. The penalty for donors is disqualification from participating until after the next general election."

"Ziebarth said that, as an American, spending $2,000 on endorsement ads was the only way he could participate and influence the election's outcome. Asked why he didn't do it under his own name, Ziebarth replied: "I wanted to see if it would get a rise out of people and apparently it did."

(............um, ya, 'cause it was kinda illegal....)

"Ziebarth was active in U.S. politics before moving to Canada. According to AllBusiness.com, Ziebarth spent five years as a fundraiser for the conservative Heritage Foundation before moving on to publish business and political newsletters."

"The District of Summerland issued a press release saying that "in an effort to be open, honest and transparent" council members disclosed the value of the ads placed by an anonymous party. It went on to say that council members "advise [that] these anonymous ads were placed by a third party without their knowledge, involvement or consent." Yet two councillors --Gordon Clark and Bruce Hallquist -- wrote on their disclosures that the donors were anonymous "for reasons of privacy."

.......hmmm, I guess we all draw our own conclusions.... but I wouldn't take the risk of electing someone based on what they say or promise they will do in the future when there is clear evidence of their character based on what they have done in the past.